On 2/10/10 10:47 AM, Justin Karneges wrote: > On Wednesday 10 February 2010 09:29:31 XMPP Extensions Editor wrote: >> The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP. >> >> Title: Jingle Relay Nodes >> >> Abstract: This documents specifies how Jingle Clients can interact with >> Jingle Relay Nodes Services and how XMPP entities can provide, search and >> list available Jingle Relay Nodes. >> >> URL: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/jingle-nodes.html >> >> The XMPP Council will decide at its next meeting whether to accept this >> proposal as an official XEP. > > Cool. I wonder how practical of a requirement it is for a relay node to not > be NAT'd though. Who is not behind a NAT? Maybe the rules should be relaxed > to allow those behind a STUN-compatible NAT to act as a relay node too. That > would really open the doors to who may be a relay node. Note: I have not yet > considered the added complexity in that case. I am just thinking out loud.
It's not clear to me if we really need to say that a relay node MUST NOT be behind a NAT. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
